TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the collapse of the said Shikhar apartment, 98 persons died. That the private Respondent herein-the victim lodged the FIR, being CR No. I-58 of 2001 with the Satellite Police Station against the Appellant and others for the offences punishable Under Sections 304, 418, 420 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(c) & (d), Section 7(1)(i)(ii)2 and Section 42 of the Gujarat Ownership of Flats and for contravention of GDCR, Building Bye-laws. That the Police Inspector, Satellite Police Station filed the charge-sheet against the Appellant and others on 02.05.2001 for the aforesaid offences. It appears that after a number of rounds of litigations, the Appellant and some of the other Accused came to be charge-sheeted. However, three Accused persons, namely, Yagnesh Vyas, Sanjay Shah and Ronak Shah were not charge-sheeted. The matter was carried up to this Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 1426 of 2017. It appears that during the hearing of the aforesaid appeal by this Court, there was progress in the investigation and the charge-sheet was filed against the Accused Yagnesh Vyas and Sanjay Shah who were also arrested. Therefore, while disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered the fact that, as held by this Court in the case of Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka (2018) 14 SCC 298 at the behest of a person who is not complainant seeking direction of further investigation is not maintainable. 3.3. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant that even as already held by this Court in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177, the complainant does not have any right to file an application Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure once the charge-sheet is framed. It is submitted that in the present case the charge-sheet is already filed and the evidence of the complainant has been recorded and therefore the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the private Respondent herein. It is submitted that if the opportunity would have been given to the Appellant by permitting the Appellant to be impleaded as a party Respondent in the Special Criminal Application, the Appellant could have pointed out the aforesaid aspects and submit the case on m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicial Magistrate rejecting the application Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure which was basically made with respect to one another Accused Shri Bhaumik as he was not charge-sheeted, the Appellant herein cannot be said to be a necessary and/or proper party, It is submitted that even the Appellant also cannot be said to be a affected party even if the Special Criminal Application is allowed and the application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure against Shri Bhaumik is allowed. 4.2. It is further submitted that being a proposed Accused even Shri Bhaumik has no locus and/or say at this stage for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of the above, reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626; Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 and Union of India v. W.N. Chadha 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260. It is submitted that therefore when the proposed Accused has no locus and/or say at this stage, the Appellant, who as such is already charge-sheeted, and the trial against him is proceeded further, and against him no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a one another Accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date? 7. Having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and the private Respondent herein, we are of the opinion that as such no error has been committed by the High Court dismissing the application submitted by the Appellant herein to implead him in the Special Criminal Application filed by the private Respondent herein challenging the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting his application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to one another Accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date. Therefore, it is not at all appreciable how the Appellant against whom no relief is sought for further investigation has any locus and/or any say in the application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure. How he can be said to be a necessary and a proper party. It is required to be noted that, as such, even the proposed Accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any say at this stage in an application Under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Proce....